An agreement regarding the “N-word” has been reached between Professor Verushka Lieutenant-Duval and the University of Ottawa. However, the clauses of this agreement resulting from arbitration proceedings remain confidential.
Posted at 1:43 p.m
“The parties have agreed to fully resolve the complaints and any disputes between them to the mutual satisfaction of all concerned. The decision remains confidential,” arbitrator Michelle Flaherty wrote in an award issued June 13. “Therefore, I am not drawing any conclusions in the context of this arbitration and the file is now closed,” she added.
Verushka Lieutenant-Duval, a lecturer at the University of Ottawa, was temporarily relieved of her duties in the fall of 2020 after saying the “N-word” in a course on the representation of sexual identities in the visual arts, months after the incident, the professor claimed , that the university never asked her for her version of the facts before removing her from her position.
In the three-page award, arbitrator Michelle Flaherty summarizes the respective positions of the University of Ottawa and Professor Verushka Lieutenant-Duval, represented by her union, the Association of Part-Time Professors of the University of Ottawa (APTPUO).
“The complainant was at the center of a media storm, often amplified by social media. She lost her right to anonymity. His personal information, including his address and phone number, has been published on Twitter and elsewhere. She received numerous, sometimes threatening, messages,” said APTPUO.
“During this time, the University released communications describing her comments as unacceptable and inappropriate, without taking the time to review interactions with students and before even meeting with the plaintiff to provide her version of the matter “to catch up,” the union adds.
“For the APTPUO, the university’s reactive actions have caused irreparable harm to the complainant. The importance of procedural fairness is not only a right that benefits those affected by a decision, but also the decision makers. The availability of further information means that the decisions made are well thought out and understandable,” the decision states.
For its part, the university asserted to the arbitrator that it had acted in good faith.
“It is important for the university to recognize that, contrary to media reports, the complainant was neither disciplinary suspended nor fired during the events of fall 2020. She remained a paid employee of the university and no disciplinary action was taken against the complainant or placed on her record,” the university said.
The facility also claims that the use of the “N-word” was not a problem in the case. “The core of the University’s collective bargaining decisions and actions arose not from the complainant’s decision to use that word, but from the events during the following lecture, which led to a crisis that required it.” “University intervention.” , the university continues.
Because of this course, the university said it received complaints from students. “The University needed to intervene temporarily and quickly to fully understand the situation and implement an approach that balances the interests of the students, the community and the complainant,” we read.
“At the time of the events, the university was in a special situation. The issue of racism has already been at the center of significant collective reflection and has been the subject of numerous interventions in its community and across the various media,” the Ottawa establishment adds.
The university also claims that its communications were intended to promote equity, diversity, inclusion, and freedom of expression and academic freedom. “Freedom of expression and academic freedom are necessary for the functioning of any university. “Protecting respectful exchanges and academic debates in the classroom is fundamental in the university environment,” emphasizes the university.
The APTPUO declined to comment on this agreement and Professor Lieutenant-Duval did not return our calls. The University of Ottawa did not respond to our questions, only saying via email: “The disputes have been resolved to the mutual satisfaction of all parties involved. »